What has anything that may or may not have happened either before of after Chalcedon (or 1500 years ago) got to do with Understanding Truth & Reality in this time and place?

This reference provides an Illumined alternative to all of the traditional interpretations of the life & teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm section 25 is particularly Illuminating!

This reference provides an introduction to a set of essays which provide an Illuminated Understanding of Truth & Reality too.
http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself/2

To Peter.

The actualness of the events are important in my understanding of faith, but nonetheless less I agree with you that the teachings and how we can learn today from both the history and the teachings is equally if not more important.

I think there can be a very good discussion about what we can learn from the bible and how to apply that to our actions and to our understanding. However I want to give you this warning. While I see your passion to reach the modern world and the secular society, I also see your words to divide up and discredit your fellow Christian brothers. Not to discredit them because of their error and straying away from the bible, but instead to discredit them because of their foundation being based too much on the bible. My warning to you is this. God's love is both for the nonbeliever to find Him, as well as for the believer to stay by Him.

Therefore if the reliability of the events of the bible is a struggle point for you, and a point of division between reaching others outside of Christianity compaired to strengthing those in Christian Faith, then let's look at the points of faith that can be learned from. You don't have to believe in the events of the bible, or suggest pet theories and theologies to discredit the events to do this, there is so much to learn from that I know we can look at the bible, learn from it, and teach from it to gather both the believing Christian to God, as well as reach the secular world outside the church also

(Continued)

(Continued)

For instance. Here are a few examples to consider. Jesus said that the Old Testament pointed to Him. Not only are there prophets prophesying about Jesus that are a point in this direction there is also a rich theological perspective to look at different people in the bible to be hints and foreshadowing of Jesus and the characteristics of him. Though this might be better a study for Christians instead of the secular world, it might also be enlightening to hear how the past people relate to the fulfillment of Jesus in the New Testament.

A second one to count is to how to look to God, or more specifically, how God has identified Himself in the bible. God is identified as a Father and a Husband several times. Both are roles we can identify with and relate with for His relationship with us as a whole or as individuals. God has called Himself a Shepard, looking after us as His flock. That also shows a role we can identify with and learn from for our relationship with Him. Both in the New Testament and the Old Testament there are these titles and these roles that we can identify God by that we can learn from and better come to God through. In fact there are more examples then these I'm sure. If you want to explore those I'm sure you can more people outside of Christianity then you can by trying to distance yourself or your views from Christians who think the bible is right.

Another topic you've already approached in this article is "the narrow path." That would also be a good discussion. Though, I'm sure your aware, there will be debate over what that narrow path really is. In the end that could have a lot we could walk away from considering it all and the different views. Might reach everyone, both Christian and non-Christian.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Keep these in mind for your next article. Or even for this conversation. Because you can reach others, even correct Christians, without having to discredit your foundations of faith and foundations of Christianity. The ideologies you bring now though are more often an explanation of Christianity to reach non-Christians by discrediting Christianity as a whole. In the end that won't help anyone, but with be fuel for nonbelievers to consider Christianity without ever accepting it, (therefore not find God), and a stumbling block for current Christians on the merits of their faith (potentially losing heart in their hope and faith in God).

Not-Now.Soon,
Let me take just one of your statements: "I think there can be a very good discussion about what we can learn from the bible and how to apply that to our actions and to our understanding." This looks like the bible simply dropped from heaven as a manual instructing us in how to live our lives. I remind you again that Christian theology existed before the canon of the bible was even on the horizon. The only bible the early Christians had was the OT. The bible grows out of theology, not the other way around. Hence theology must always interpret the bible. The great mistake the the Reformation in its slogan "sola scriptura" was to think that the individual can simply read the bible and understand the essence of faith. A great corrective of this idea is Stanley Hauerwas' book Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America. Read my article based on the book. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19216

Peter.

I agree that we need God to draw us to Him for us to find Him. And this speaks of the Holy Spirit, not theology. A person can read the bible and learn from it without theology or even without a theological background such as being raised in a church foundation and have it's theology be part of their life even if they aren't aware of it. The person can do this by being lead and taught by God Himself through the Holy Spirit. A simple way to do this is to ask God to help you understand as you read the bible. A simple prayer as that can do so much. But that isn't sola scripture. That is still asking for God's guidance even while reading.

That said I am not against theology. It's not an either/or situation like you present it in the article you reference "should Christians read the bible." The bible should be the main foundation. Christians should read and study the bible. (As long as they are able to anyways). This does not mean they should not further their studies in other ways as well, but the bible should be one of the biggest foundations of their faith. Theology is the study of the bible and it's topics. In that way it's just a much bigger version of a bible study. It can be useful and help us in our understanding.

Christian theology without the bible is not Christian theology. It can be no theology from a Christian perspective. It would be like a prophet without God is just a false prophet. Saying false things and leading many astray. So it is with a theology without the bible as it's foundation.

Aside from that rebuke, Peter. Make no mistake. What I said to you earlier was not meant to raise a debate out of you, such as your reply for solo scripture makes out to be. But instead it was an invitation to share a theology that would be bible based. Surely you have studied one of these? Instead of your pet theologies that weaken the foundation of a Christian's faith, and lead nonChristians in a false direction. My suggestions were to offer subjects that could reach and save non-Christians, or at least encourage and strengthen Christians. (Hopefully both). So I gave examples of subjects that could go in that direction. Is this too much a task for you? Too hard to ask that instead you would rather try to reach non believers by saying "Christianity isn't really right?"

.

Dear Peter,

.

To describe Christianity (“the Church”) in terms of a conflict between Evangelicalism and Liberalism is a bit simplistic.

Conservatism and liberalism are to be found in all religions. In the broader sense they constitute two well-known forms of “weltanschauung” shared by individuals and communities throughout humanity since time immemorial. But they are not the only ones. There are many others.

Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion. However, core worldview beliefs are often deeply rooted, and so are only rarely reflected on by individuals, and are brought to the surface only in moments of crises of faith.

A worldview, according to terror management theory (TMT), serves as a buffer against death anxiety. Here is the conclusion of a 2007 research paper titled “Is Death Really the Worm at the Core? Converging Evidence that Worldview Threat Increases Death-Thought Accessibility” – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 5 :

« According to TMT, cultural worldviews provide individuals with a sense of meaning, personal significance, and life continuity, which protect them from the terror resulting from an awareness of their mortality. The horrifying awareness that people may be nothing more than walking digestive tracts— ultimately insignificant, finite, and expendable—is a bleak view of reality that, despite all efforts of sublimation, can never be completely ruled out. To push this possibility out of consciousness, human beings have fabricated cultural meaning systems and complex social organizations to suggest that humans really are significant and that human existence is not finite. Nevertheless, every now and again, cherished values and beliefs are brought into question, causing absolute faith in people’s views of reality to wane. When this happens, people’s fundamental beliefs need to be fortified and safeguarded or else goal-directed action may, over time, bog down with chronic thoughts and concerns about human mortality ...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In support of this theoretical view, the current research has shown that when people’s protective beliefs are damaged, thoughts about death do indeed creep closer to the surface. To put it in Jamesian terms, when absolute faith in the cultural conception of reality is weakened, the worm at the core of cultural prescriptions for happiness is revealed. »
.

Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises – which is why politicians often seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different meanings to the same events. Tribal or national wars are often the result of incompatible worldviews.

It is totally illusory to imagine that discussions on a forum such as OLO could possibly have the slightest influence on the “core beliefs” of anybody’s worldview.

Personally, if I had just one wish, it would be for a greater degree of tolerance among participants. But I fear that even that is quixotic.

.

To Peter.

Here for you, I'll present a subject. Bring anything you want from your studies and understanding of theology, or of scripture. Either way this is a topic that can get the ball rolling. The topic is our value to God. I'll start with looking at Luke 15.

In Luke 15 we read that Jesus has tax collectors and sinners gathered around to hear what Jesus taught. Because of this the Pharisees and teachers of the law talked to each other against Jesus, saying that Jesus welcomes sinners and eats with them.

Jesus gives His explanation by giving three parables that are wildly know as the parable of the Lost Sheep, the parable of the Lost Coin, and the parable of the Lost Son. In these parables lies a clue of our value to God. How God considers us.

In the Parable of the lost Sheep Jesus explains that if a Shepard has 100 sheep and loses one of them, he will leave his other sheep in the open while he searches for the lost sheep until he finds it. Then after that the Shepard will return with the sheep and celebrate with his friends and neighbors because he found the lost sheep. Jesus explains that there is more rejoicing in Heaven over 1 sinner who repents then there is for 99 righteous people who have no need to repent. This is our value to God and is enough of an explanation for why Jesus was associating with sinners, but Jesus goes further in making the point.

(continued)

(Continued)

In the Parable of the Lost Coin. Jesus explains that woman who has 10 silver coins and loses one of them, will search carefully throughout her house to find it, and when she does, she will call her friend and neighbors to celebrate because she found the valuable coin. Jesus again explain this is like it is in heaven. Rejoicing in the presence of angels over a repentant sinner. So far Jesus has explained our value in a way that the herdsmen and the merchants will relate to. But his last parable relates to the lost sinners as a father rejoices over finding a lost son.

In the Parable of the Lost Son Jesus goes into more detail. A father with two sons, has the younger one demands his share of the estate, his inheritance, and leaves. The boy squanders the money and eventually has nothing left. The son ends up barely getting by feeding pigs while he is starving, before he comes to his senses to go back to his father and ask to be just a servant working instead of expecting to be a son who has rights of being in the family. What happens instead is that the father sees the son as he approaches and runs to greet him, and indeed makes a celebration of his return. Even with the bitterness of his brother involved, the father defends his love and welcoming for the younger brother. This shows greatly our value to God.

(continued)

(Continued)

On more theological points, these three parables can shape how we read the rest of the bible, and interpret it, as well as better understand difficult questions in life. The love of God for us, and the value we have to Him highlights on subjects of loving others, treating others kindly and trying to rescue and help them in their struggles. Whether it is morning after a funeral, food or assistance when they've lost their home, or any other activity to serve the community and be there for individuals. It also can be an understanding of some hardships (though not all hardships fit this) to either show us to look for God like the lost son finally realized what he lost and returned to his father, or to put us in a place to repent of our sins like the value told in the other two parables that one repentant person is a great reason to celebrate in heaven's kingdom.

Whether you believe in a culture of liberal loosening of faith, or of evangelical foundation of faith (or something besides either), there is a lot that can be talked about and learned from by what is actually in the bible. Theology I hope you have heard of and studied. And if not, perhaps something to look into.

There are many other topics that can be a theological discussion. And I'm sure many of them can be beneficial for reaching the secular world, while explaining aspects of Christian Faith or Christian culture. (Or even aspects that Christians as a culture and population need to work on). At least that's where I think your goals are directed to in your articles. To bridge the gap between Christian and non Christian, and explain it in a way that the world can relate to.

NNS,

You wrote to Peter: <<But instead it was an invitation to share a theology that would be bible based. Surely you have studied one of these? Instead of your pet theologies that weaken the foundation of a Christian's faith, and lead nonChristians in a false direction>>

I'm jumping in here. Previously Peter has admitted he follows Karl Barth's theology, which is neo-orthodox. Karl Barth, a Swiss theologian (d. 1968),stated this about Scripture:

"Instead of talking about the “errors” of the biblical authors in this sphere, if we want to go to the heart of things it is better to speak only about their “capacity for errors.” For in the last resort even in relation to the general view of the world and man the insight and knowledge of our age can be neither divine nor even solomonic. But fundamentally we certainly have to face the objection and believe in spite of it!.... But the vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious and theological content" (Church Dogmatics: Doctrine of the Word of God I.2, p. 508).

So, to expect Peter to present a Bible-based theology is to do something that is outside of his theological worldview. Why would he do this if he doesn't believe in sola scriptura

Marty Foord summarised the Reformers understanding of Scripture alone:

"Sola Scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. The Bible ruled reason and tradition because it alone was infallible as God’s word. All other authorities (including church leadership) were fallible and must submit to Scripture." See: http://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-real-meaning-of-sola-scriptura/

To expect Sells to present a Bible-based theology would be like asking a strawberry grower to harvest raspberries

To OzSpen.

Thank you for that heads up on Peter's world view. It doesn't make sense to me though. In one of his articles he is trying to juggle that the bible is inerrant and true in a spiritual sense even if it is made up of both real events and legends made up. But as much as I can't agree with that standpoint, it should still hold the teachings in the bible as from God and hold some theology and study based on those. I honestly thought this could be some common ground based on his comments in the last article he wrote. Or even if he doesn't think the bible can be interpreted by just anyone, then there would be studies based on the church's interpretations of what's in the bible. (Again common ground to at least approach a topic).

To Peter.

Forgive me these intrusions. But you've talked about the different cultures within the church. My hope is to not focus too deeply on the cultures as much as the points that they both hold value to them. Namely your view of theology being an important foundation, and my understanding that the bible should be an important foundation.

With this in mind, I'll continue on in my approach. Explaining a theology of our value to God as a lens to see other parts of the bible.

To Banjo Paterson. Take what I'm trying to share into consideration. After all you present a theory on world views that operates under the basis that world views are all false, (and thus eventually will fall apart under doubt and reveal a great terror of death). The hypothesis behind the theory you present is that biblical world views are false. However you give this view without a test to see if it holds merit. (It is just already assumed to be true and therefore unneeded to be tested).

To Peter.

Continuing on with an understanding of our value to God. Based on the parables already looked into we can understand that God values us enough to celebrate when a lost person can 1) turn from their sins, and 2) Come back to Him. In fact this value can be a lens to look at other scripture through and understand it from the scope of saving the lost.

For example of this, consider Jesus warning in Luke 17:1-4, and the same warning in Mathew 18:6-10. Woe to the person who makes a little one who believes stumble. Saying it would be better to have a millstone (very heavy stone for grinding grains) tied to your neck and downed in the sea then to be a cause to make others stumble. In Luke Jesus continues on to teach that if someone sins against you, to rebuke them, and if they repent of it, forgive them. Even if they do this over and over again in one day. In Mathew, Jesus teaches this lesson to not cause someone to stumble, along side the parable of the lost sheep. He even says to not despise one of these "little ones" because their angel is in the presence of God. So there is some very protective love going on here, like a parent's love. Just as there was the love of celebration in the parable of the lost son by the father in the parable. So also is the same kind of parental love, a protective love, on us as well.

Make note and treat each other as if you're brother and sister and do no harm to each other because it's the same love for your brothers and sisters that your parents have that gets a child in trouble when they mistreat their siblings.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second example of God's love being a redeeming love to save the lost and hold us as valuable treasure can be found by looking at the book of Jonah. In it God sends a reluctant prophet to prophesy against a people who are an enemy of Israel. Instead Jonah runs the opposite direction hoping to not give them any warning land letting the judgment fall on them. What happens next is that God don't allow This prophet to run from the duty He sent Jonah on. Instead God sent a storm that almost drowns Jonah and the ship and crew he rode on to basically show that refusal to bring the message was not an option unless Jonah wishes to die with his choice.

Eventually in the book Jonah goes to the city to preach the coming destruction because of their sins. And guess what? They turn from their sins. That generation is saved., and no harm comes to them. This event (or legend if you can't believe events in the bible) confirms the teachings of Jesus saying that if one lost person repents it is celebrated in heaven more then if 99 righteous people never turn away. God sees this as true even to a people who have been an enemy to Israel. (Going back to other teachings to love your enemy).

To Peter.

Based on OzSpen's explaination of your view of the bible, I can understand that all of this might be new information to you. Things you have not heard, have not studied, or even have not considered. But what I don't understand is why this is new information to you. Why when asked to have a theology that is based on the bible the church theologies that you've studied held up no reply except a complaint on solo-scripture.

Shouldn't the teachings in the bible have a rich history of theologians interpreting the bible and coming to explain what's in the bible? That was your point earlier with you're reply against solo-scripture. Therefore it would only be resonable that by studying the theology as you have you would have studied theologies that are based on the bible. (Because it was the church who interprets the bible and offers the interpretations as theology). Therefore why have you remained silent when I've given you an opportunity to teach a theology that is rooted in what's in the bible? Why is OzSpen's explaination necessary to explain your lack of theology rooted in the bible! It does not make sense. And it makes me think that you need to be taught because your current religous education is lacking a great deal.

Do not take offense to that. Don't you dare! It was you who said that the church interprets the bible for the people. If that is true, then it should be part of theological study to know how the church has interpreted the bible and to have at least a few of the theologies come to mind for someone such as yourself who has presented himself as studied in theology. Not having that element shows a hole in the education of theology that you currently have. We all have more to learn. So don't fight against it. Just do it.

To Peter.

Sorry for pushing you so much on theology. If you want to just talk about the different cultures in Christianity, or on other non theological subjects, I'll try to let you be on that. But I had hope that could be a point of common ground to discuss.

NNS,

<<Based on OzSpen's explaination (sic) of your view of the bible, I can understand that all of this might be new information to you. Things you have not heard, have not studied, or even have not considered.>>

From my interaction with Sells, it is not that the Bible-believing, evangelical understanding is 'new information', it's because he rejects that interpretation.

His history of being in the Anglican church would have enabled him to understand the evangelical Sydney Anglican diocese, which is the largest Anglican diocese in Australia. There is a strong evangelical Anglican tradition in Australia (incl. the Melbourne diocese) and around the world. However, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, modernism and postmodernism reject Bible-believing interpretations.

Instead, my dialogues with those who promote these views lead me to conclude they don't allow the text to speak for itself (exegesis) but impose their worldviews on the text (eisegesis).

<<Shouldn't the teachings in the bible have a rich history of theologians interpreting the bible and coming to explain what's in the bible>>

You are correct in this observation. However, when theological institutions don't believe the Bible but embrace higher-critical methods that devalue Scripture, you get people from the pulpit who deny fundamentals of the faith.

Did you read the story from Canada of a United Church minister who is an atheist? See: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/atheist-united-church-minister-keeps-her-job-heresy-trial-called-off-1.4170525

The Anglicans (Episcopalians) have a similar problem in the USA with ex-bishop John Shelby Spong promoting unorthodox theology that contradicts the Bible. See: http://whosoever.org/v3i3/spong.html

To OzSpen.

Since Peter hasn't replied to this conversation I have to assume one of a few things have happened. Either he:

•Has nothing to add to the discussion, strengthing what I've said to him.

•Has no motivation to continue on the conversation and tires from it. Which regardless if he can add more to it he doesn't due to my continued debate. Or because I've argued a point too much, or have been rude, so that he just doesn't care one way or another.

•or he is considering what was said earlier. Either taking in the things presented to consider on his own, or to start another article later on that will address what he thinks is right, for a different conversation and a fresh start.

Either way, the truth is that he's not responding. If he is still reading conversation, I hope he hears me when I say this.
______________________________
Peter my invitation to discuss any bible interpretation still stands. And that invitation will remain on the table whenever, if ever, you wish to take it. Until then and probabley through that time, I hope you find God, and come to trust Him more. And I do still worry about you. Sorry, but I can't help it.
________________________________

On the other hand, OzSpen, if he doesn't want to talk further, what more can I do? I can offer what I have, in case he or anyone else reads it. But I can't force him or anyone else to turn from their views and philosophy. If you can OzSpen keep Peter and those like him like the ex bishop and the atheist preacher in your prayers. Not just for their sake, but for those who believe them who are Christian, and those who listen to them who are not Christian as well.